3 ms·

Why? They're suggesting the data doesn't support the claim - They only needs data of their own if they had their own claim. The burden of proof is not on them.

Why? They're suggesting the data doesn't support the claim - They only needs data of their own if they had their own claim. The burden of proof is not on them. This isn't a trial, it's an argument. And regardless of context, you should support your argument with facts, not pure speculation. The entire article is completely devoid of supporting evidence. There's nothing wrong with saying that the original study lacked evidence (if that's true), but making up your own facts without either citing a source or acknowledging that they're just speculation is not valid criticism.

Chris2048 11y ago
"Burden of Proof" isn't just a legal term: http://ddo.wikia.com/wiki/Burden_Of_Proof http://ddo.wikia.com/wiki/Burden_Of_Proof vs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof > There's nothing wrong with saying that the original study lacked evidence To show a study "lacks evidence" you need to show where it is lacking. Any plausible hypothetical not refuted by the study evidence, but also not compatible with the study conclusion, is proof of this. > making up your own facts Which facts? A statement preceded by "I would say" is one not presented as fact, but explicitly as opinion.
- vannevar 11y ago
  Legalistic arguments over the burden of proof aside, I stand by my assertion that you should support an argument with facts. And a statement like "But the women that are there are usually always employed by some small to medium tech company." doesn't sound like an opinion being offered. I'm not saying the author was morally wrong to make his statement, only that it falls far short of something worth being posted on HN. If he'd taken the extra time to verify some of his opinions, I'd feel differently.
  - Chris2048 11y ago
    In the context of a plausible hypothetical alternative, that unverified claim still has value. People post their opinions on HN all the time, and 'verify' is a problematic concept - what tools do we have to verify something? WE're software devs, not statisticians, and and quasi-scientific, slapdash case can be made to people who lack those critical skills. TLDR; Most devs lack the qualifications to 'verify' anything statistical... Not that that will stop them from assuming they're "smart" enough to figure it out anyway...

Chris2048 11y ago

"Burden of Proof" isn't just a legal term: http://ddo.wikia.com/wiki/Burden_Of_Proof http://ddo.wikia.com/wiki/Burden_Of_Proof vs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof > There's nothing wrong with saying that the original study lacked evidence To show a study "lacks evidence" you need to show where it is lacking. Any plausible hypothetical not refuted by the study evidence, but also not compatible with the study conclusion, is proof of this. > making up your own facts Which facts? A statement preceded by "I would say" is one not presented as fact, but explicitly as opinion.

vannevar 11y ago
Legalistic arguments over the burden of proof aside, I stand by my assertion that you should support an argument with facts. And a statement like "But the women that are there are usually always employed by some small to medium tech company." doesn't sound like an opinion being offered. I'm not saying the author was morally wrong to make his statement, only that it falls far short of something worth being posted on HN. If he'd taken the extra time to verify some of his opinions, I'd feel differently.
- Chris2048 11y ago
  In the context of a plausible hypothetical alternative, that unverified claim still has value. People post their opinions on HN all the time, and 'verify' is a problematic concept - what tools do we have to verify something? WE're software devs, not statisticians, and and quasi-scientific, slapdash case can be made to people who lack those critical skills. TLDR; Most devs lack the qualifications to 'verify' anything statistical... Not that that will stop them from assuming they're "smart" enough to figure it out anyway...